751G.00/6–254: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Embassy in France1
4551. Limit distribution. Your 46622 states that Ely pointed out that question of US training native forces is but one part of overall plan for intervention. Yet in your 48123 you state French have always considered training as a problem separate from possible united action.
We sought unsuccessfully to obtain French agreement to US training native forces as part of our support of the Navarre Plan which was then looked upon as a comprehensive, long term program for winning victory in Indochina. This proposal of ours was at that time rejected. We consider it most unwise to get large numbers US instructors as well as US prestige engaged in Viet Nam unless there is some new overall program which would give training program chance for success.
At same time, Ely’s position seems clear that French have been opposed to give US responsibility for training unless US agreed to [Page 1685] intervention. It may be that in effort draw US into conflict without having US conditions on intervention met, French military may now seek US training in advance of US commitment to intervene without combat forces. As set forth Deptel 45084 and above, we are resolved not to get drawn into training program when due to deteriorating conditions and lack of overall program to reverse situation training program has virtually no chance of success. If French are not going to agree to only kind of armistice which now seems possible at Geneva, but are going to fight for more than protection of expeditionary corps, possibility may exist for development some program to reverse present downhill trend. But this seems unfortunately most unlikely to us.
Under present circumstances, and particularly in view of three points you make Embtel 4812, believe you should clarify US position only if you are forced to do so and should in interim reply to French that we are in agreement with Ely’s position expressed Embtel 4662.